I should have added that we do "work" on our own equipment in that we install the brake valves, grease the cylinders, use our single car test device, etc during the COT&S, but we do not open up the valves themselves and do not have a test rack for them to verify proper operation.

David Farlow
Whitewater Valley RR


hudson.industries@worldnet.att.net

> I do know that FRA inspectors look for
> no-no's like never-seize on brake cylinder
> and operating portion bolts. If you repair
> your own stuff and they find no-no's, it
> goes down in the book as a black mark
> against you, and there will be a close eye
> kept on your work for quite a while.

Just curious as to why is using never-seize a "no-no"? It would seem to me to be good practice, particularly on items that are undercar and subject to weather. Or is it the theory that the "operator" has simply removed the bolts/nuts, doped them up to look like the portion was removed/renewed, and reapplied the fasteners?

hpincus@mindspring.com

Did some research and:

> The FRA essentially enforces the AAR
> standards from what I understand. For
> example, you won't find the time
> requirements for UC valve testing in the FRA
> rule, instead it refers to the appropriate
> industry (AAR) standard.

For passenger and cars, there is no "essentially" about it: 49 CFR part 232.17 b (1) & (2) *if* you are running them in interchange. On the other hand, if you have them in "captive service", non-general system service, like the Grand Canyon or Valley RR, that's a whole different story.

>My inspector claims
> that it isn't a proper job if it hasn't been
> done by an AAR certified shop

Certified shops aren't required for passenger cars and locomotives by the AAR, , , , , yet. They've been working on it for about 4 years now, but no agreement nor specifications so far.

F, H, and K triples aren't legal in interchange service (although P and L are), so I think the guy is out to lunch on the AAR shop requirement for this equipment.

If it's your own captive, non-interchange equipment, the AAR doesn't require a "certified shop" to work thereon.

Certified shops *are* required by the AAR for interchange freight cars.

>and in this
> case I don't argue with him.

Most of the time this is the best course of action, but if he gets too difficult and unreasonable, nit-picking this and that all the time, escalating the requirements for a passing grade with each visit, I would go over his head with a complaint. Seen this sort of thing happen before (and the inspector get his wings clipped). If you ever do file a complaint, have an iron-clad case. Be very, very careful in your wording and your documentation of the situation leading up to the complaint.

>I have a car
> with a K-2 valve that was rebuilt by PABCO
> and I understand he checked for the shop
> initials on it at one point during a visit.

This is a way of his saying to you, "I don't think you know what you're doing".

> This implies to me that he sees the shop's
> general credentials as an important aspect,

It also means one or both of two things: 1) he doesn't know what he is dealing with (seen this many times); 2) he knows that many "tourist rrs" and short lines (and the contractors they hire) are rather sloppy about their mantenance (read "Gettysburg" into this)--seen this many times too.

There are a lot of irresponsible bozos out there pretending to be air brake "specialists". At one time (*quite* a while ago) Amtrak was using a contractor whose method of COTS for a 26-C control valve was to wash off the outside with solvent, repaint, return, and then bill. Atk, which can't get anything right the first time, fired this outfit twice and then sued them.

It sometimes becomes a question of your competence versus his, and if the regulators don't have a clue about what they are regulating . . . How many car inspectors and FRA MP&E people would recognize a cast iron wheel without the ribs on the back?? Not all CI wheel designs had these ribs.

Nor do you have to test the valves on a "test rack". You can test it on the car it is going to be used on; it just has to pass the those tests.

Someone else was asking about "modern" test codes. There are "modern" test codes for everything (F, H, K, L, P, U-12, U-12BC, U-12BD triple/control valves; S-3, S-6, G-6, H-6 brake valves; B-6, C-6, F-3, M-3, M-3A, D-24 feed valves; on and on and on) because the "modern" test code is the most recent one issued. It might have been put out upwards of 50 years ago, but if it hasn't been supersede with a newer one, it's still current, and therefore "modern". You supply the piece number, WABCo will supply the current Code of Tests (probably a hanlding and printing fee involved too). Not sure about NYAB though.

> I am under the impression though that the
> Universal Control (UC) valves are under a 15
> month change cycle. Is it really 18 months
> (obviously I hope I'm wrong) and where is
> that documented?

My source says 24 months, and it could be that the 18 month period is for P, L, and "all valves not listed"--it was some 10 yeas ago when I read this. This is in the AAR standards, volume E (?).

Also bear in mind that the rules change completely 1/1/2002, particularly with passenger stuff.

> Just curious as to why is using never-seize
> a "no-no"?

Never-seize is *not* a lubricant; it has granuals in it, just like the coumpound used to lap the slide valves. You don't want this stuff in your air brake apparatus unless you're in the process of repairing it. The theory is that if its on these bolts, then it's elsewhere too . . . where it *shouldn't* be (even though you may not have put it there).

If you need to use an anti-corrosion agent on bolt threads, use brake cylinder lubricant--not regular grease either. And don't take it out of the same pail of BC lube that you use to grease the brake cylinder. Always keep the BC pail covered tightly unless you are in the process of lubing the BC. And even then open it only to extract the grease and immediately re-close it.

Mr Geiter,

> There are no modern test
> that I know of for these.

From one of my other posts:

"There are 'modern' test codes for everything (F, H, K, L, P, U-12, U-12BC, U-12BD triple/control valves; S-3, S-6, F-6, G-6, H-6 brake valves; B-6, C-6, F-3, M-3, M-3A, D-24 feed valves; on and on and on) because the 'modern' test code is the most recent one issued. It might have been put out upwards of 50 years ago, but if it hasn't been supersede with a newer one, it's still current, and therefore 'modern'. You supply the piece number, WABCo will supply the current Code of Tests (probably a hanlding and printing fee involved too). Not sure about NYAB though."

A friend and I have ammassed a collection of almost three full file drawers of these, all current as of 2 years ago (most are still current). I know you can get "current" test codes because I recently got one for an M-24D [traction] brake valve, and this type of brake valve more or less "died with the PE" in 1962.

> The only tests out
> there for these are the old manuals that
> Westinghouse Air Brake put out.

Not true, see above paragraphs.

If by this comment you're referring to those 4x5 booklet "codes of tests", they are obsolete. WABCo has issued more recent ones, although not in this booklet style form.

As I recall, AAR "certification" revolves more around your shop procedures and working practises rather than they type of apparatus you're repairing, although, you do have to know about what you're working on. I'll double check on this if you wish but won't have a definitive answer until the middle of next week.

> Mr Geiter,

> From one of my other posts:

> "There are 'modern' test codes for
> everything (F, H, K, L, P, U-12, U-12BC,
> U-12BD triple/control valves; S-3, S-6, F-6,
> G-6, H-6 brake valves; B-6, C-6, F-3, M-3,
> M-3A, D-24 feed valves; on and on and on)
> because the 'modern' test code is the most
> recent one issued. It might have been put
> out upwards of 50 years ago, but if it
> hasn't been supersede with a newer one, it's
> still current, and therefore 'modern'. You
> supply the piece number, WABCo will supply
> the current Code of Tests (probably a
> hanlding and printing fee involved too). Not
> sure about NYAB though."

> A friend and I have ammassed a collection of
> almost three full file drawers of these, all
> current as of 2 years ago (most are still
> current). I know you can get
> "current" test codes because I
> recently got one for an M-24D [traction]
> brake valve, and this type of brake valve
> more or less "died with the PE" in
> 1962.

> Not true, see above paragraphs.

> If by this comment you're referring to those
> 4x5 booklet "codes of tests", they
> are obsolete. WABCo has issued more recent
> ones, although not in this booklet style
> form.

> As I recall, AAR "certification"
> revolves more around your shop procedures
> and working practises rather than they type
> of apparatus you're repairing, although, you
> do have to know about what you're working
> on. I'll double check on this if you wish
> but won't have a definitive answer until the
> middle of next week.

Thanks for the input. It is greatly appreciated.
R.Geiter


geiter3@home.com